Anybody heard of this: Dick Act of 1902?

[calsdad]

Saw a link to this on another forum:

http://dprogram.net/2009/08/04/dick...den-protection-against-tyrannical-government/

Dick Act of 1902… Can’t Be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Posted by sakerfa on August 4, 2009

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

This would seem to be a problem for a lot of modern day gun regulation laws......

 

[mikem317]

(Avatar) - Right click, Save As...

 

[Jose]

I bet it never got signed into law.

 

[cekim]

Can’t Be Repealed

If it can't, it isn't constitutional... One congress cannot "bind the hands of the Congress that follows"

Only constitutional amendments are "permanent"...

I have no idea what this is, but my spidey senses are tingling... (and not in a good way - precursor to a BS filter firing).

 

[Underwhere]

I read somewhere that the original bill contained language about the right to bear arms but by the time it made it through 2 houses of legislature, that language was removed. It was signed into law in 1903 rather than 1902

 

[stencil]

U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html>

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The "How Current is This?" link indicates that this is valid as of 8 Jan 2008 and that there are no currently-pending modifications.
.

 

[TomH]

Since when does the government obey the Constitution and laws? This really doesn't surprise me, past generations defended the founding principles... the current ones don't care about them at all.

 

[Nickle]

And, this has been contradicted by other laws since before 1917.

The National Guard is not and hasn't been a "militia" in about a century, if not longer.

The Guard is part of the 'standing Army' and had to be to send Army Guard units to France in WW1.

Most folks don't know that Harry Truman was an Artillery Captain in the Missouri Army Guard, and served in France in WW1 with his unit.

 

[drgrant]

Most folks don't know that Harry Truman was an Artillery Captain in the Missouri Army Guard, and served in France in WW1 with his unit.

I did, but that's only because I did a report on him in the 6th grade, along with a rather poorly drawn crayon based caricature of the man standing next to an artillery piece.

-Mike

 

[namedpipes]

Although I am 31 y/o, I have been so for almost 15 years.

This law, were it to be proven valid, wouldn't help me. On the other hand it is blatant age discrimination . . .

A google search on Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 will show discussions on this going back years on The Firing Line for instance.

 

[Arto]

That's why the old Armories all have "MVM" on the front Massachusetts Volunteer Militia.
Before the Dick Act, each state outfitted & armed their troops - kind of a logistical nightmare for a modern army - i.e. ammo = not just .58 cal Minie Balls [.45-70, .30-40 Krag..... ]